I KNEW this was coming because as I said it would be painful
for some lawyers to read what I wrote in “Unswayed by fear or favour”
(Sunday Star, May 20).

I am indeed not wrong with my prognostication.

However, I am surprised that it was even necessary for the eight Loyarburoks to
come together to give a 2,700-word response to something they felt were just
mere fallacies being spun by me.

In a tweet sent out early yesterday morning, one of the eight, K. Shanmuga
tweeted that their joint statement, “Bar’s resolution proper”, (The Star, May
23) was issued because my aforesaid article had got all of them so annoyed.

Hence, because I emphatise with them, I would oblige them in the best tradition
of the Bar with a short reply which should suffice.

Firstly, my concern on the independence of the 80 monitors from the Bar is not
totally unfounded. Of the 80 monitors, I personally know at least one whom I
follow on Twitter.

On April 28, the day the Bersih 3.0 assembly was held, this monitor, albeit not
based in Kuala Lumpur, had tweeted, inter alia, the following whilst undertaking
monitoring duties:

It follows that the political and social beliefs as well as the prejudices of
these monitors are material to ascertain if the integrity and independence of
their final report could be described as incontrovertible. Unfortunately, we
were not provided with the names of these 80 monitors.

A fortiori, my political affiliation is not relevant compared to the monitors’
simply because I did not volunteer to assume such a heavy responsibility of an
independent monitor during the assembly.

Further, my MCA membership, albeit dormant, is public knowledge and I have
written several articles in that capacity anyway. Neither have I made any
attempt to hide it.

The fact remains that at least I do not pursue any political agenda under the
guise of any organisation, be it political or non-governmental.

Of the many articles I have written, majority of them are critical of government
policies and supportive of the Bar; the last being my support for the continuing
professional development proposed by the Bar Council “Lawyers must constantly
improve skills” (The Star, March 9).

The eight are probably oblivious, either deliberately or otherwise, of this fact
– but hopefully not because they felt that was the natural thing I should do.

In fact, I am in the least bothered by their insinuation that the stand I took
in my aforesaid article was because of my MCA membership.

As the saying goes, truth fears no trial and it is their assertion which is
nothing but a fallacy.

Secondly, I am not just obsessed, but very obsessed with Datuk Seri Anwar
Ibrahim.

As a lawyer, I should be very concerned if this political leader who aspires to
be the future prime minister of our great nation has no regard whatsoever for
the rule of law and the due process of law.

The eight Loyarburoks are clearly very economical with their criticisms of the
breach of the barrier which triggered the response from the police. They even
argued that there was no compelling evidence on who had removed the barriers.

In this respect, I know I am getting old but let me assure them that my eyesight
is still good enough to watch the many videos posted on YouTube which showed
otherwise.

Apropos, I am impressed that my eight learned friends were discerning enough to
decipher the hidden meaning of my argument that if the Bar Council could rely on
their conclusions based only on reports, so could I.

Thirdly and finally, it is not fair to portray that I condone police brutality.

I have emphasised in my article as well as during the EGM that there is no
excuse if the police had responded disproportionately to the act of breaching
the barricade.

I made it clear in the EGM that I would support the resolutions against police
brutality if the Bar would inveigh in similar language the acts of violence
committed by those protesters who had behaved like rioters and anarchists during
the assembly.

What I was also interested to find out before forming my judgment is what
actually caused some policemen and protesters to react in the way they did,
taking into account various rumours surrounding it.

The monitors’ report had, in fact, mentioned that protesters had thrown bottles
at passing patrol cars as well as taunted policemen with derogatory shouts of
‘anjing’ and ‘anjing kurap’. When I raised this at the EGM, the chairman, Lim
Chee Wee did not think these acts were serious enough to warrant condemnation
from the Bar prompting me to ask if it was all right from now on for the
citizens to call policemen with such derogatory terms.

It is not true that no amendment was proposed to Resolution (12) as regards the
conduct of the protesters. I specifically proposed that this should be placed in
the same Resolution (1) with regards to police brutality but with respect, the
chairman disagreed with me.

In fact, I would also like an investigation to be done first whether various
steps allegedly taken by the police in dispersing crowd are in accordance with
standard policing methods.

In the United States, for example, the police have even used Taser stun gun
against contumacious protesters.

All in all, the resolution was initiated by the Bar Council and I obviously had
hoped that the Council would have been more circumspect in their approach
because the entire Bar looks to them for their guidance on various matters.

One would expect that even though the Council had decided at the eleventh hour
to amend to include a resolution on the conduct of the protesters, the Council
should have reasonably foreseen that merely expressing concern over such violent
acts by rioters would be repugnant to many law-abiding citizens in this country.

All in all, the thrust of my aforesaid article is that the Bar must not only be
independent and apolitical but seen to be independent and apolitical.

In fact, there was clearly no necessity for the eight lawyers to get so annoyed.
They should take my criticisms constructively.

After all, I was merely stating, whether rightly or wrongly, why I could not
vote in favour of the motion.

My criticisms were made not to divide but to strengthen the Bar out of my love
for the Bar.

As their arguments against me are, in my humble view, fallacious, I shall treat
the matter closed and venture no further to respond again.